Delaware v Prouse
White, J. | Group 2
Topic: “Stop and frisk” automobile roadblocks,
and “other less intrusive searches”
Facts
November 30, 1976 7:30PM  a New Castle
County, Del., patrolman in a police cruiser
stopped the automobile occupied by respondent.
The patrolman smelled marihuana smoke as he
was walking toward the stopped vehicle, and he
seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor.
Respondent was subsequently indicted for
illegal possession of a controlled substance.
At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress
the marihuana seized as a result of the stop, the
patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the
vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or
equipment violations nor any suspicious activity,
and that he made the stop only in order to check
the driver's license and registration.
The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any
standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining
to document spot checks, promulgated by either
his department or the State Attorney General.
Characterizing the stop as "routine," the
patrolman explained, "I saw the car in the area
and wasn't answering any complaints, so I
decided to pull them off."
The trial court granted the motion to suppress,
finding the stop and detention to have been
wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the
Fourth Amendment.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, noting
first that "[t]he issue of the legal validity of
systematic, roadblock-type stops of a number of
vehicles for license and vehicle registration
check is not now before the Court,"
Court held: "a random stop of a motorist in the
absence of specific articulable facts which justify
the stop by indicating a reasonable suspicion
that a violation of the law has occurred is
constitutionally impermissible and violative of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution."
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict
between this decision, which is in accord with
decisions in five other jurisdictions, and the
contrary determination in six jurisdictions that
the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the
kind of automobile stop that occurred here.
Issue W/N it is an unreasonable seizure under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments YES
Held
On jurisdiction
Because the Delaware Supreme Court held that
the stop at issue not only violated the Federal
Constitution but also was impermissible under
Art. I, § 6, of the Delaware Constitution, it is
urged that the judgment below was based on an
independent and adequate state ground, and
that we therefore have no jurisdiction in this
case. Based on our reading of the opinion,
however, we are satisfied that, even if the State
Constitution would have provided an adequate
basis for the judgment, the Delaware Supreme
Court did not intend to rest its decision
independently on the State Constitution, and
that we have jurisdiction of this case.
Legality of investigative stops
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are
implicated in this case because stopping an
automobile and detaining its occupants
constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of
those Amendments, even though the purpose of
the stop is limited and the resulting detention
quite brief.
The essential purpose of the proscriptions in the
Fourth Amendment is to impose a standard of
"reasonableness" upon the exercise of
discretion by government officials, including law
enforcement agents, in order "to safeguard the
privacy and security of individuals against
arbitrary invasions."
In this case, the State of Delaware urges that
patrol officers be subject to no constraints in
deciding which automobiles shall be stopped for
a license and registration check because the
State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a
means of ensuring the safety of its roadways
outweighs the resulting intrusion on the privacy
and security of the persons detained. (even with
no probable cause)
The States have a vital interest in ensuring that
only those qualified to do so are permitted to
operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are
fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing,
registration, and vehicle inspection requirements
are being observed.
The question remains, however, whether, in
the service of these important ends, the
discretionary spot check is a sufficiently
productive mechanism to justify the
intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests
which such stops entail.
On the record before us, that question must
be answered in the negative.
Given the alternative mechanisms available, we
are unconvinced that the incremental
contribution to highway safety of the random
spot check justifies the practice under the Fourth
Amendment.
The foremost method of enforcing traffic and
vehicle safety regulations is acting upon
observed violations. Furthermore, drivers
without licenses are presumably the less safe
drivers whose propensities may well exhibit
themselves.
In terms of actually discovering unlicensed
drivers or deterring them from driving, the spot
check does not appear sufficiently productive to
qualify as a reasonable law enforcement
practice under the Fourth Amendment.
Much the same can be said about the safety
aspects of automobiles, as distinguished from
drivers. Many violations of minimum vehicle
safety requirements are observable, and
something can be done about them by the
observing officer, directly and immediately.
The "grave danger" of abuse of discretion does
not disappear simply because the automobile is
subject to state regulation resulting in numerous
instances of police-citizen contact.
An individual operating or traveling in an
automobile does not lose all reasonable
expectation of privacy simply because the
automobile and its use are subject to
government regulation. Automobile travel is a
basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of
transportation to and from one's home,
workplace, and leisure activities.
Were the individual subject to unfettered
governmental intrusion every time he entered an
automobile, the security guaranteed by the
Fourth Amendment would be seriously
circumscribed. As Terry v. Ohio recognized,
people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment
protection when they step from their homes onto
the public sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those
interests when they step from the sidewalks into
their automobiles.
Accordingly, we hold that, except in those
situations in which there is at least articulable
and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is
unlicensed or that an automobile is not
registered, or that either the vehicle or an
occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for
violation of law, stopping an automobile and
detaining the driver in order to check his driver's
license and the registration of the automobile
are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
This holding does not preclude the State of
Delaware or other States from developing
methods for spot checks that involve less
intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained
exercise of discretion. Questioning of all
oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one
possible alternative. We hold only that persons
in automobiles on public roadways may not, for
that reason alone, have their travel and privacy
interfered with at the unbridled discretion of
police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.